Main menu

Tag Archives: CMP

On 17 July 2017 IBM announced the z14 server as “the next generation of the world’s most powerful transaction system, capable of running more than 12 billion encrypted transactions per day. The new system also introduces a breakthrough encryption engine that, for the first time, makes it possible to pervasively encrypt data associated with any application, cloud service or database all the time”.

At first glance, a cursory review of the z14 announcement might just appear as another server upgrade release, but that could be a costly mistake by the reader. There are always subtle nuisances in any technology announcement, while finding them and applying them to your own business can sometimes be a challenge. In this particular instance, perhaps one might consider “Persuasive Encryption & Contained Pricing”…

When IBM releases a new generation of z Systems server, many of us look to the “feeds and speeds” data and ponder how that might influence our performance and capacity profiles. IBM state the average z14 speed compared with a z13 increase by ~10% for 6-way servers and larger. As per usual, there are software Technology Transition Offering (TTO) discounts ranging from 6% to 21% for z14 only sites. However, in these times where workload profiles are rapidly changing and evolving, it’s sometimes easy to overlook that IBM have to consider the holistic position of the IBM Z world. Quite simply, IBM has many divisions, Hardware, Software, Services, et al. Therefore there has to be interaction between the hardware and software divisions and in this instance, IBM have delivered a z14 server that is security focussed, with their Pervasive Encryption functionality.

Pervasive Encryption provides a simple and transparent approach for z Systems security, enabling the highest levels of data encryption for all data usage scenarios, for example:

Processing: When retrieved from files and processed by applications

In Flight: When being transmitted over internal and external networks

At Rest: When stored in database structures or files

In Store: When stored in magnetic storage media

Pervasive Encryption simplifies and reduces costs associated when protecting data by policy (I.E. Subset) or En Masse (I.E. All Of The Data, All Of the Time), achieving compliance mandates. When considering the EU GDPR (European Union General Data Protection Regulation) compliance mandate, companies must notify relevant parties within 72 hours of first having become aware of a personal data breach. Additionally organizations can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater), for any GDPR breach unless they can demonstrate that data was encrypted and keys were protected.

To facilitate this new approach for encryption, the IBM z14 infrastructure incorporates several new capabilities integrated throughout the technology stack, including Hardware, Operating System and Middleware. Integrated CPU chip cryptographic acceleration is enhanced, delivering ~600% increased performance when compared with its z13 predecessor and ~20 times faster than competitive server platforms. File and data set encryption is optimized within the Operating Systems (I.E. z/OS), safeguarding transparent and optimized encryption, not impacting application functionality or performance. Middleware software subsystems including DB2 and IMS leverage from these Pervasive Encryption techniques, safeguarding that High Availability databases can be transitioned to full encryption without stopping the database, application or subsystem.

Arguably IBM had to deliver this type of security functionality for its top tier z Systems customers, as inevitably they would be impacted by compliance mandates such as GDPR. Conversely, the opportunity to address the majority of external hacking scenarios with one common approach is an attractive proposition. However, as always, the devil is always in the detail, and given an impending deadline date of May 2018 for GDPR compliance, I wonder how many z Systems customers could implement the requisite z14 hardware and related Operating System (I.E. z/OS) and Subsystem (I.E. CICS, DB2, IMS, MQ, et al) .upgrades before this date? From a bigger picture viewpoint, Pervasive Encryption does offer the requisite functionality to apply a generic end-to-end process for securing all data, especially Mission Critical data…

Previously we have considered the complexity of IBM z Systems pricing mechanisms and in theory, the z14 announcement tried to simplify some of these challenges by building upon and formalizing Container Pricing. Container Pricing is intended to greatly simplify software pricing for qualified collocated workloads, whether collocated with other existing workloads on the same LPAR, deployed in a separate LPAR or across multiple LPARs. Container pricing allows the specified workload to be separately priced based on a variety of metrics. New approved z/OS workloads can be deployed collocated with other sub-capacity products (I.E. CICS, DB2, IMS, MQ, z/OS) without impacting cost profiles of existing workloads.

As per most new IBM z Systems pricing mechanisms of late, there is a commercial collaboration and exchange required between IBM and their customer. Once a Container Pricing solution is agreed between IBM and their customer, for an agreed price, an IBM Sales order is initiated, triggering the creation of an Approved Solution ID. The IBM provided solution ID is a 64-character string representing an approved workload with an entitled MSU capacity, representing a Full Capacity Pricing Container used for billing purposes.

Previously we considered the importance of WLM for managing z/OS workloads and its interaction with soft-capping, and this is reinforced with this latest IBM Container Pricing mechanism. The z/OS Workload Manager (WLM) enables Container Pricing using a resource classified as the Tenant Resource Group (TRG), defining the workload in terms of address spaces and independent enclaves. The TRG, combined with a unique Approved Solution ID, represents the IBM approved solution. As per standard SCRT processing, workload instrumentation data is collected, safeguarding that this workload profile does not directly impact the traditional peak LPAR Rolling Four-Hour Average (R4HA). The TRG also allows the workload to be metered and optionally capped, independent of other workloads that are running collocated in the LPAR.

MSU utilization of the defined workload is recorded by WLM and RMF, subsequently processed by SCRT to subtract the solution MSU capacity from the LPAR R4HA. The solution can then be priced independently, based on MSU resource consumed by the workload, or based upon other non-MSU values, specifically a Business Value Metric (E.g. Number of Payments). Therefore Container Pricing is much simpler and much more flexible than previous IBM collocated workload mechanism, namely IWP and zCAP.

Container Pricing eliminates the requirement to commission specific new environments to optimize MLC pricing. By deploying a standard IBM process framework, new workloads can be commissioned without impacting the R4HA of collocated workloads, being deployed as per business requirements, whether on the same LPAR, a separate LPAR, or dispersed across multiple LPAR structures. Quite simply, the standard IBM process framework is the Approved Solution ID, associating the client based z/OS system environment to the associated IBM sales contract.

In this first iteration release associated with the z14 announcement, Container Pricing can be deployed in the following three solution based scenarios:

Application Development and Test Solution: Add up to 3 times more capacity to existing Development and Test environments without any additional monthly licensing costs; or create new LPAR environments with competitive pricing.

New Application Solution: Add new z/OS microservices or applications, priced individually without impacting the cost of other workloads on the same system.

Payments Pricing Solution: A single agreed value based price for software plus hardware or just software, via a number of payments processed metric, based on IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) software.

IBM state z14 support for a maximum 2 million Docker containers in an associated maximum 32 TB memory configuration. In conjunction with other I/O enhancements, IBM state a z14 performance increase of ~300%, when compared with its z13 predecessor. Historically the IBM Z platform was never envisaged as being the ideal container platform. However, its ability to seamlessly support z/OS and Linux, while the majority of mission critical Systems Of Record (SOR) data resides on IBM Z platforms, might just be a compelling case for microservices to be processed on the IBM Z platform, minimizing any data latency transfer.

Container Pricing for z/OS is somewhat analogous to the IBM Cloud Managed Services on z Systems pricing model (I.E. CPU consumption based). Therefore, if monthly R4HA peak processing is driven by an OLTP application, or any other workload for that matter, any additional unused capacity in that specific SCRT reporting month can be allocated for no cost to other workloads. Therefore z/OS customers will be able to take advantage of this approach, processing collocated microservices or applications for a zero or nominal cost.

County Multiplex Pricing (CMP) Observation: The z14 is the first new generation of IBM Z hardware since the introduction of the CMP pricing mechanism. When a client first implements a Multiplex, IBM Z server eligibility cannot be older than two generations (I.E. N-2) prior to the most recently available server (I.E. N). Therefore the General Availability (GA) of z14, classifies the z114 and z196 servers as previously eligible CMP machines. IBM will provide a 3 Month grace period for CMP transition activities for these N-3 servers, namely z114 and z196. Quite simply, the first client CMP invoice must be submitted within 90 days of the z14 GA date, namely 13 September 2017, no later than 1 January 2018.

In conclusion, Pervasive Encryption is an omnipresent z14 function integrated into every data lifecycle stage, which could easily be classified as Persuasive Encryption, simplifying the sometimes arduous process of classifying and managing mission-critical data. As cybersecurity becomes an omnipresent clear and present danger, associated with impending and increasingly punitive compliance mandates such as GDPR, the realm of possibility exists to resolve this high profile corporate challenge once and for all.

Likewise, Container Pricing provides a much needed simple-to-use framework to drive MSU cost optimization for new workloads and could easily be classified as Contained Pricing. The committed IBM Mainframe customer will upgrade their z13 server environment to z14, as part of their periodic technology refresh approach. Arguably, those Mainframe customers who have been somewhat hesitant in upgrading from older technology Mainframe servers, might just have a compelling reason to upgrade their environments to z14, safeguarding cybersecurity challenges and evolving processes to contain z/OS MLC costs.

A sophisticated mechanism is required to orchestrate the allocation of System z resources (E.g. CPU, Memory, I/O) to multiple z/OS workloads, requiring differing business processing priorities. Put very simply, a mechanism is required to translate business processing requirements (I.E. SLA) into an automated and equitable z/OS performance manager. Such a mechanism will safeguard the highest possible throughput, while delivering the best possible system responsiveness. Ideally, such a mechanism will assist in delivering this optimal performance, for the lowest cost; for z/OS, primarily Workload License Charges (WLC) related. Of course, the Workload Management (WLM) z/OS Operating System component delivers this functionality.

A rhetorical question for all z/OS Performance Managers and z/OS MLC Cost Managers would be “how much importance does your organization place on WLM and how proactively do you manage this seemingly pivotal z/OS component”? In essence, this seems like a ridiculous question, yet there is evidence that suggests many organizations, both customer and ISV alike, don’t necessarily consider WLM to be a fundamental or high priority performance management discipline. Let’s consider several reasons why WLM is a fundamental component in balancing cost and performance for each and every z/OS environment:

CPU (MSU) Resource Capping: Whatever the capping method (I.E. Absolute, Hard, Soft), WLM is a controlling mechanism, typically in conjunction with PR/SM, determining when capping is initiated, how it is managed and when it is terminated. Therefore from a dispassionate viewpoint, any 3rd party ISV product that performs MSU optimization via soft capping mechanisms should ideally consider the same CPU (E.g. SMF Type 70, 72, 99) instrumentation data as WLM. Some solutions don’t offer this granularity (E.g. AutoSoftCapping, iCap).

MLC R4HA Cost Management: WLM is the fundamental mechanism for controlling this #1 System z software TCO component; namely WLM collects 48 consecutive metric CPU MSU resource usage every 5 Minutes, commonly known as the Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA). In an ideal world, an optimally managed workload that generates a “valid monthly peak”, will fully utilize this “already paid for” available CPU MSU resource for the remainder of the MLC eligible month (I.E. Start of the 2nd day in a calendar month, to the end of the 1st day in the next calendar month). More recently, Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP) allows an organization to move workloads between System z server (I.E. CPC) structures, without cost consideration for cumulative R4HA peaks. Similarly, Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) reporting will be simplified with WLM service definitions in z/OS 2.2. Therefore it seems prudent that real-time WLM management, both in terms of real-time reporting and pro-active decision making makes sense.

Since its announcement in September 1994 (I.E. MVS/ESA Version 5), WLM has evolved to become a fully-rounded and highly capable z/OS System Resources Manager (SRM), simply translating business prioritization policies into dynamic function, optimizing System z CPU, Memory and I/O resources. More recently, WLM continues to simplify the management of CPU chip cache hierarchy resources, while reporting abilities gain in strength, with topology reporting and the promise of simplified MWP reporting. Moreover, WLM resource management becomes more granular and seemingly the realm of possibility exists to “micro manage” System z performance, as and if required. Conversely, WLM provides the opportunity to simplify System z performance management, with intelligent workload differentiation (I.E. Subsystem Enclave, Batch, JES, USS, et al).

Quite simply, IBM are providing the instrumentation and tools for the 21st Century System z Performance and Software Cost Subject Matter Expert (SME) to deliver optimal performance for minimal cost. However, it is incumbent for each and every System z user to optimize software TCO, proactively implementing new processes and leveraging from System z functions accordingly.

Returning to that earlier rhetorical question about the importance of WLM; seemingly its importance is without doubt, primarily because of its instrumentation and management abilities of increasingly cache rich System z CPU chips and its fundamental role in controlling CPU MSU resource, vis-à-vis the R4HA.

Although IBM will provide the System z user with function to optimize system performance and cost, for obvious commercial reasons IBM will not reduce the base cost of System z MLC software. However, recent MLC pricing announcements, namely Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP), Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) and Collocated Application Pricing (zCAP) provide tangible options to reduce System z MLC TCO. Therefore the System z user might need to consider how they can access real-time WLM performance metrics, intelligently combining this instrumentation data with function to intelligently optimize CPU MSU resource, managing the R4HA accordingly.

Workload X-Ray (WLXR) from zIT Consulting simplifies WLM performance reporting, enabling users to drill down into the root cause of performance variances in a very fast and easy way. WLXR assists in root cause problem determination by zooming in, starting from a high level overview, going right down to detailed Service Class performance information, such as the Performance Index (PI), showing potential bottleneck situations during peak time. Any system overhead considerations are limited, as WLXR delivers meaningful real time information on a “need to know” basis.

A fundamental design objective for WLXR is data reduction, only delivering the important information required for timely and professional workload management. Straight to the point information instead of data overload, sometimes from a plethora of data sources (E.g. SMF, System Monitors, et al). WLXR incorporates the following easy-to-use functions:

Without doubt, WLM is a significant z/OS System Resources Management function, simplifying the translation of business workload requirements (I.E. Service Level Agreement) into timely and proactive allocation of major System z hardware resources (I.E. CPU, Memory, I/O). This management of System z resources has been forever thus for 20+ years, while WLM has always offered “software cost control” functionality, working with the various and evolving CPU capping techniques. What might not be so obvious, is that there is a WLM orientated price versus performance correlation, which has become more evident in the last 5 years or so. Whether Absolute Capping, HiperDispatch, Mobile Workload Pricing, Country Multiplex Pricing or evolving Soft Capping techniques, the need for System z users to integrate z/OS MLC pricing considerations alongside WLM performance based management is evident.

Historically there was not a clear and identified need for a z/OS Performance/Capacity Manager to consider MLC costs in their System z server designs. However, there is a clear and present danger that this historic modus operandi continues and there will only be one financial winner, namely IBM, with unnecessarily high MLC charges. Each and every System z user, whether large or small, can safeguard the longevity of their IBM Mainframe platform by recognizing and deploying proactive and current System z MLC cost management processes.

All too often it seems that capping can be envisaged as punitive, degrading system performance to reduce System z MLC costs. Such a notion needs to be consigned to history, with a focussed perspective on MSU optimization, where the valuable and granular MSU resource is allocated to the workload that requires such CPU resource, with near real-time performance profiling. If we perceive MSU optimization to be R4HA based and that IBM are increasing WLM function to assist this objective, CPU capping can be a benefit that does not adversely impact performance. As previously stated, once a valid R4HA peak has occurred, that high MSU watermark is available for the remainder of the MLC billing period. Similarly at a more granular level, once a workload has peaked and its MSU usage declines, the available MSU can be redirected to other workloads. With the introduction of Country Multiplex Pricing, System z users no longer need to concern themselves about creating a higher R4HA peak, when moving workloads between System z servers.

Quite simply, from the two most important perspectives, performance and cost optimization, WLM provides the majority of functionality to assist System z users get the best performance for the lowest cost. Analytics based products like Workload X-Ray (WLXR) assist this endeavour, analysing WLM data in near real-time from a performance and MLC cost perspective. It therefore follows that if this important information is also available for sophisticated MSU optimization solutions, which consider WLM performance (E.g. zDynaCap, zPrice Manager), then proactive performance and cost management follows. It’s hard to envisage how a fully-rounded MSU optimization decision can be implemented in near real-time, from an MSU optimization solution that does not consider WLM performance metrics…

Recently IBM announced ~4% price increases in z/OS Monthly License Charges (MLC) for selected Operating System and Middleware software programs and associated features. Specifically, price increases will apply to the VWLC, AWLC, EWLC, AEWLC, PSLC, FWLC and TWLC pricing metrics. Notably, SDSF price increases will be ~20% with Advanced Function Printing (AFP) product price increases of ~13-24%. In a global economy where inflation rates for The USA and Western Europe are close to 0%, one must draw one’s own conclusions accordingly. Lets’ not forget that product version changes typically have an associated price increase. From a contractual viewpoint, IBM only have to provide 90 days advance notice for such price changes, in this instance, IBM provided 150+ days advanced notice.

Price increases are inevitable and as always, it’s better to be proactive as opposed to reactive to such changes. As always, the old proverbs always make good sense and in this instance, “look after the Pennies and the Pounds will look after themselves”! This periodic IBM price increase is inevitable, but is not the underlying issue for controlling System z software costs. For many years, since 1994 to be precise, when IBM introduced Parallel Sysplex License Charges (PSLC), the need for IBM Mainframe users to minimize MSU usage has been of high if not critical importance. Nothing has changed in this 20+ year period and even though IBM might have introduced Sub-Capacity and specialty engines to minimize chargeable MSU usage, has each and every System z user optimized their MSU usage? Ideally this would not be a rhetorical question, rather being a “Golden Rule”, where despite organic CPU capacity increases of ~10% per annum, a System z environment could maintain near static IBM MLC software costs.

I have written several blog entries and presented on this subject matter over the years, for example:

The simple bottom line is that System z MLC software accounts for ~20-35% of the overall System z TCO, typically being the #1 expenditure item. For that reason alone, it’s incumbent for each and every System z user to safeguard they have the technical and commercial skills in place to manage this cost item, not as an afterthought, but inbuilt into each and every System z process, from application design, through to that often neglected afterthought, application tuning.

Many System z organizations might try to differentiate between a nuance of System and Application tuning, but such a “not my problem” type attitude is not acceptable and will be imposing a significant financial burden on each and every organization.

A dispassionate and pragmatic approach is required for optimizing System z CPU usage. In this timeframe, let’s examine the ~20% SDSF price increase. IBM will quite rightly state that in conjunction with their z/OS 2.2 release, there are significant SDSF product function advancements, including zIIP offload, REXX interoperability and increased information delivery. However are such function improvements over and above the norm and not expected as a Business As Usual (BAU) product improvements, which should be included in the Service & Support (S&S) or Monthly License Charges (MLC) paid for software?

In October 2013 I wrote a blog entry; Mainframe ISV Software: Is Continuous Product Improvement Always Evident? The underlying message was that an ISV should deliver the best product they can, for each and every release, without necessarily increasing software costs. In this particular instance, the product was an SDSF equivalent, namely (E)JES, which many years ago delivered all of the function incorporated in SDSF for z/OS 2.2, but for a fraction of the cost…

As of 1 November 2015, IBM will start billing cycles for Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP), which requires the October 2015 version of SCRT, namely V23R10. A Multiplex is defined as a collection of all System z servers in one country, measured as one System z server for software sub-capacity reporting. Sub-Capacity program utilization peaks across the Multiplex will be measured, as opposed to separate peaks by System z servers. CMP also provides the flexibility to move and run workloads anywhere with the elimination of Sysplex aggregation pricing rules.

Migrating to CMP is focussed on CPU capacity growth and flexibility going forward. Therefore System z users should not expect price reductions for their existing workloads upon CMP deployment. Indeed there are CMP deployment considerations. A CMP MSU baseline (base) needs to be established, where this MSU Base and associated MLC Base Factor is established for each sub-capacity MLC product and each applicable feature code. These MSU and MLC bases represent the previous 3 Month averages reported by SCRT before commencing CMP. Quite simply, to gain the most from CMP, the System z user must safeguard that their R4HA for each and every MLC product is optimized, before setting the CMP baseline, otherwise CMP related cost savings going forward are likely to be null.

From a very high-level management viewpoint, we must observe that IBM are a commercial organization, and although IBM provide mechanisms for controlling cost going forward, only the System z user can optimize System z MLC cost for their organization. Arguably with CMP, Soft-Capping isn’t a consideration, it’s mandatory.

Put very simply, each and every System z user can safeguard that they look after the Pennies (Cents) and the Pounds (Euros, Dollars) will look after themselves by paying careful attention to System z MLC software costs. Setting a baseline of System z MLC costs is mandatory, whether for the first time, or to set a new baseline for CMP deployment. Maintaining or lowering this System z MLC cost baseline should or arguably must be the objective going forward, even when considering 10% organic CPU growth, each and every year. System z decision-makers and managers must commit to such an objective and safeguard the provision of adequately skilled personnel to optimize such a considerable TCO cost line item (I.E. MLC @ ~20-35% of System z TCO). In an ecosystem with technical resources including DBA, Systems Programmer, Capacity Planner, Application Personnel, Performance Tuning, et al, why wouldn’t there be a specialist Software Cost Manager?

Let’s consider how even an inexperienced System z user can maintain a baseline of System z MLC costs, even with organic CPU capacity growth of 10% per annum:

New Application Deployment: As and when possible, deploy new or convert existing workloads to benefit from the optimal MLC pricing metric; previously zNALC, nowadays zCAP.

Technical & Commercial Skills Currency: Safeguard personnel have the latest System z software pricing knowledge, ideally from an independent 3rd party such as Watson & Walker.

In conclusion, as householders we have the opportunity to optimize our cost expenditure, choosing and switching between various major cost items such as financial, utility and vehicle products. As System z users, we don’t have that option, only IBM provide System z servers and associated base architecture, namely the most expensive MLC software products, z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS and WebSphere/MQ. However, just as we manage our domestic budgets, reducing power usage, optimizing vehicle TCO and getting more bang from our buck for financial products various, we can and must deliver this same due diligence for our System z MLC TCO. With industry averages of ~$500-$1000 per MSU for z/OS MLC software and associated annual expenditure measured in many millions, why wouldn’t any System z user look to deliver 10%+ cost per MSU optimization, year-on-year for their organization?

Clearly the cost of doing nothing in this instance, is significant, measured in magnitudes of millions, each and every year. Hence for System z MLC TCO optimization, looking after the Pennies is more than worthwhile, while the associated benefit of the Pounds, Euros or Dollars looking after themselves is arguably priceless.